Green Building Forum - Planning fees to rise by 15%

Planning fees to rise by 15%

Triassic — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 12:28:28 +0100

Decentralisation minister Greg Clark has today announced plans for a one-off increase in planning fees of around 15 per cent.

In a written statement issued this afternoon, Clark said that planning application fees have not been increased since 2008. He said that the government is proposing a "one-off adjustment to up-rate fees in line with inflation, amounting to around 15 per cent since 2008".

The minister said that most councils are experiencing a shortfall in fee income, "which is failing to meet the costs of deciding planning applications which, in turn, has to be subsidised by ordinary council tax payers, who end up subsidising the planning process".

Clark said: "Providing planning departments with the resources that are required to turn round planning applications efficiently and effectively is important.

http://www.planningresource.co.uk/Business/article/1139371/c...

So when Britain Gets Building again, fee income will increase and and the rise will be reversed?

Planning fees to rise by 15%

fostertom — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 12:49:28 +0100

Posted By: Triassicthe costs of deciding planning applications which, in turn, has to be subsidised by ordinary council tax payers, who end up subsidising the planning process

It was 'ordinary council tax payers' who elected govts who decided to initiate a 'democratic' planning control process for the common good and at public expense. Developers and householders never asked to be so controlled; if the 'ordinary council tax payers' want to exert such control, then 'they' should pay for it. The argument that grant of consent creates asset value for the applicant, so he should be taxed on that, is rubbish: it's the control system itself that creates a scarcity of Consents therefore a value when Consent is granted.

Planning fees to rise by 15%

James Norton — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 13:13:59 +0100

Posted By: fostertomIt was 'ordinary council tax payers' who elected govts who decided to initiate a 'democratic' planning control process for the common good and at public expense. Developers and householders never asked to be so controlled; if the 'ordinary council tax payers' want to exert such control, then 'they' should pay for it. The argument that grant of consent creates asset value for the applicant, so he should be taxed on that, is rubbish: it's the control system itself that creates a scarcity of Consents therefore a value when Consent is granted.

Hear hear...

J

Planning fees to rise by 15%

JSHarris — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 13:51:07 +0100

If costs aren't being covered by the present fee structure, might it not make more sense for them to analyse where the costs are being absorbed, and then either reduce them or change the fee structure to better match the typical cost profile?

As I understand it, if 100 individual self builders apply for planning permission to build one house each then the fees would come to Â£33,500.

If a developer wants to build 100 houses (and his application, because of the scale, could end up with a public enquiry and high admin costs for the LA) then the developer pays just Â£21,565.

It looks to me as if one-off self-build applicants may well be subsidising large scale developments...................

Planning fees to rise by 15%

James Norton — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 14:01:26 +0100

...plus the bat survey, plus the ecology report, plus the archaeology report and investigation, plus the highways report, plus the agricultural report, plus the contamination survey and investigation, plus the public consultation, CfSH pre-assessment, sustainability report, heritage asset report, access report, design report, drainage report, flood risk assessment, ground investigation... any I've missed...?

J

Planning fees to rise by 15%

Joiner — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 14:18:11 +0100

What happened to the idea of allowing LAs to charge the actual, full cost of any planning activity on their part? (Not a set fee structure, but billing for the time and resources spent responding to an application or enquiry.)

Planning fees to rise by 15%

Triassic — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 14:21:16 +0100

And if you want to convert an out building to a stables you'll need an Equestrial Tourism Report.

Of course this may be seen as farm diversification so you'll need a Farm Diversification Report.

Planning fees to rise by 15%

fostertom — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 14:34:31 +0100

Posted By: James Nortondrainage report

now (last Nov) the water boards have unilaterally taken ownership of hitherto private property, any part of drain that serves more than one property, now deeming them public sewers, more than doubling their network overnight whilst simultaneously shedding lots of experienced staff. Draconian building-over (or alongside) rigid rules now apply, no chance of a friendly commonsensical visit, as promptly provided proviously by the building inspectors, instead a fee to consider full drawn details of the proposal accomanied by a CCTV survey (Â£400 minimum) and they'll respond from their desk within 10 working days, while the groundworker goes on holiday leaving the trenches open.

Planning fees to rise by 15%

JSHarris — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 15:08:16 +0100

Posted By: JoinerWhat happened to the idea of allowing LAs to charge the actual, full cost of any planning activity on their part? (Not a set fee structure, but billing for the time and resources spent responding to an application or enquiry.)

Good point. I challenged (unsuccessfully) the charges for a telephone conversation with a planning officer, by getting the full employment costs from the local authority (via a FoI request) and discovered that the highest paid planning officer in my local office cost the council about Â£16 per hour to employ (pay plus all employment overheads). The lowest paid planning officer cost the council about Â£13 per hour to employ. A generous average might make it Â£15 per hour.

If we allow around Â£50 for postage, putting out the notices etc, then that means we should expect to get around 19 hours of work from a planning officer per application. My guess is that few single applications take up 19 hours of a planning officers time.

Planning fees to rise by 15%

CWatters — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 08:11:21 +0100

Typical fee for a small 4-6 turbine wind farm is around Â£15-20K. The real cost to process the application properly through appeal is at least 10 times that. Housing applications are subsidising wind farm applications big time.

Planning fees to rise by 15%

fostertom — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 10:38:54 +0100

Posted By: CWattersaround Â£15-20K. The real cost to process the application properly through appeal is at least 10 times that

A perfect example of how the public purse, which we i.e.society as a whole pay into, should pay the costs of democratic control, which is for the benefit of society a a whole.

Planning fees to rise by 15%

Joiner — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 10:51:32 +0100

Democratic? Since when has a planning application for a wind farm ever been subjected to the democratic principle at the local level?

Planning fees to rise by 15%

fostertom — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 11:06:02 +0100

Well, that's another story - what started as democratic control by elected local councillors, with advice from council officers, has morphed into an arena for commrcial and vested interests vs central govt policy (itself more bureacratic and vested than democratic) vs pressure groups, with local (and national) democracy hardly getting a look in. Agreed that my democracy-based argument about 'who pays' has become inapplicable. I think that such applications shd be paid out of Tory party funds - all the stakeholders (except environmental pressure groups) will be paying into that anyway.

Planning fees to rise by 15%

caliwag — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 14:44:05 +0100

...and all this for a poorer service...OK the cuts have a serious effect in my LA, but my emails go unanswered and my phone calls go into the ether or are swallowed up by voicemail and are then ignored...and documentation no longer appears. If lucky an email appears showing planning approval. I would have thought that they would be obliged to notify in writing!

Planning fees to rise by 15%

Joiner — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 20:01:37 +0100

They have Jim. Have you not read the Guidance Notes for Applicants? It appears somewhere towards the beginning of The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy. Just put 'Vogon' into the search engine.

Planning fees to rise by 15%

JSHarris — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 21:36:02 +0100

Posted By: JoinerThey have Jim. Have you not read the Guidance Notes for Applicants? It appears somewhere towards the beginning of The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy. Just put 'Vogon' into the search engine.

Ah, the "publish the notice in the basement" ploy when constructing a new intergalactic highway. Sort of caught poor old Arthur Dent (and the remainder of the population of that odd experiment, conducted by mice, called planet Earth) by surprise.

Shame about Douglas' early demise, but some of him lives on in HÂ²GÂ² (with which I have slightly a more than tenuous connection).

Planning fees to rise by 15%

CWatters — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 00:18:02 +0100

Posted By: fostertom
Posted By: CWattersaround Â£15-20K. The real cost to process the application properly through appeal is at least 10 times that
A perfect example of how the public purse, which we i.e.society as a whole pay into, should pay the costs of democratic control, which is for the benefit of society a a whole.

Only if the public also shares in the profit right?

Planning fees to rise by 15%

James Norton — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 08:24:39 +0100

Colin,

See Toms later post also the planning debate is scewed by the idea of 'The Developer', the greedy, amoral, free market demon, who tears up the countryside for his own gain.

Essentially all a developer is is a business that provides buildings for people to work, live, play in etc. We should remember that pretty much all of the built environment is provided by a developer. They of course want to make profit because firstly they wouldn't get financial backing to build anything otherwise and secondly they are businesses so making a profit is pretty necessary to stay doing that business. Some of them are rogues and some of them are decent people...

That is not to say that the developer model is good or even an adequate way to build buildings, but its the one that we've voted for as a country by responding to promises of lower tax and by extension a smaller state.

Planners benefit massively in this debate by being pitched against the big bad developer... As above its a false image and even if true doesn't grant planners or their system any credit or worthiness. There just aren't many 'Good guys' in this set up.

The point tom makes is that the whole system is pretty much useless at achieving any of its goals of facilitating but controlling development or of providing any democratic oversight...

j

Planning fees to rise by 15%

SteamyTea — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 08:35:10 +0100

Posted By: James Nortonthe idea of 'The Developer'

Interesting that as I had an 'anti-developer' knock on my door asking me to support not having some homes built on an old commercial site. Though I agreed to a certain extent that high density housing is not desirable (not that I mentioned it), denying the opportunity to house people is morally wrong. And I bet they never mention all the people that supported the development, but guess that is up to the developer to do.
8 out of 10 cats that, that expressed an opinion!

Planning fees to rise by 15%

Joiner — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 08:45:11 +0100

At one time the word 'developer' just meant what it said: whoever the individual happened to be who was constructing whatever was being built, whether that individual was a self-builder (who is after all just another developer) or a company.

Nowadays the word is used by individuals who have assumed it to describe their "profession", describing not so much what they do as what they are, how they see themselves.

Hence the word has taken on aspects of personality, and we all know how many types of those you can get! Including 'personality disorder', which tends to manifest itself in not very pleasant ways.

In other words, it's the connotations the word now carries that have distanced it from its original meaning. A bit like "banker".

Planning fees to rise by 15%

fostertom — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 09:35:24 +0100

Posted By: CWattersOnly if the public also shares in the profit right?

Posted By: James NortonSee Toms later post

Posted By: fostertomThe argument that grant of consent creates asset value for the applicant, so he should be taxed on that, is rubbish: it's the control system itself that creates a scarcity of Consents therefore a value when Consent is granted.

Posted By: James Nortonall a developer is is a business that provides buildings ... They of course want to make profit

But there's 2 kinds of profit they make, one 'honest' as James suggests, the other pure speculation - profit from asset value rise ('can go down as well as up') without doing any work other than deploying skills to make deals (not really 'work'!).

The latter is due to natural shortage of buildable land in the 'right' place, but greatly exagerated by the existence of Planning control. Various attempts have been made by leftist governments to remove land value from private ownership, to make it a public good. It was a popularly supported plank of the post-WW2 idealistic left government, along with free NHS, education, nationalisation, Planning control etc, but somehow got defeated by rightist interests. The Wilson govt tried a watered down version - Development Land Tax - but that too got whittled away. It's dropped right out of public consciousness now, so crushed are we by by decades of Thatcherite/New Labour biz domination.

Posted By: James NortonThe point tom makes is that the whole system is pretty much useless at achieving any of its goals of facilitating but controlling development or of providing any democratic oversight...

The last (democratic oversight) yes, but Planning has definitely been the saviour of this green and pleasant land.